Justia Legal Ethics Opinion Summaries

William Chalmers filed for legal separation from his wife, which was later converted to a dissolution proceeding. During the proceedings, Chalmers' attorney requested the appointment of a guardian ad litem due to concerns about Chalmers' capacity. The court appointed Brian Theut as guardian ad litem, who then requested the appointment of East Valley Fiduciary Services, Inc. (EVFS) as temporary guardian and conservator. EVFS retained Ryan Scharber and John McKindles to represent them and Chalmers, respectively. The professionals did not file the required statement under A.R.S. § 14-5109(A) explaining their compensation arrangement.The professionals filed numerous applications for fees and costs, which were initially approved by the court. However, when a new judge took over, Chalmers objected to the fee applications, including those already approved. The court denied the outstanding fee applications, citing the professionals' failure to comply with § 14-5109(A) and noting that they had already received substantial compensation. The court of appeals held that the prior fee approvals were not final and remanded the case to determine if the approvals were manifestly erroneous or unjust due to non-compliance with § 14-5109(A).The Arizona Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that failure to comply with § 14-5109(A) does not automatically preclude recovery of fees. The court found that the statute is directory, not mandatory, and that the trial court has discretion to rectify non-compliance. The court vacated the court of appeals' opinion, affirmed the denial of fees to which Chalmers timely objected, but reversed the ruling requiring the professionals to disgorge previously awarded fees. The case was remanded to reinstate the initial fee awards. View "In the matter of CHALMERS" on Justia Law

Marc B. Hankin appealed a probate court order that dismissed his petition for the appointment of a probate conservator for Anne S. and imposed $5,577 in sanctions against him. Hankin, who had only met Anne once and lived nearby, filed the petition along with attorney G. Scott Sobel, who had known Anne for many years. The petition alleged that Anne was being unduly influenced and possibly mistreated by her housemate. Anne, through her attorney, objected to the conservatorship. Sobel later withdrew from the petition, leaving Hankin to maintain it on his own. Anne and other parties involved reached a settlement agreement, which Hankin opposed, arguing Anne lacked the capacity to sign it.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted Anne's motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that Hankin lacked standing to petition for conservatorship under Probate Code section 1820. The court also imposed sanctions on Hankin, finding his petition legally frivolous. Hankin appealed both decisions.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, agreeing that Hankin did not qualify as an "interested person" or "friend" under section 1820. The court noted that Hankin's brief interaction with Anne did not establish a close or intimate relationship necessary to be considered a friend. Additionally, the court found that Hankin's arguments for standing were unsupported by existing law and did not present a good faith argument for extending the law. The court also upheld the sanctions, determining that Hankin's petition was legally frivolous and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding them. View "Conservatorship of Anne S." on Justia Law

Vernon K. Smith, Jr. was declared a vexatious litigant by the Fourth District Administrative District Judge (ADJ) in Idaho. This order prevents Smith from filing new litigation pro se in Idaho courts without obtaining prior permission from a judge. The determination arose from Smith's conduct in litigation concerning the administration of his mother Victoria H. Smith’s estate. Smith, a former attorney, was involved in contentious probate proceedings after his brother successfully challenged their mother's will, which had left the entire estate to Smith. The estate was subsequently administered as intestate, leading to multiple appeals and disciplinary actions against Smith by the Idaho State Bar.The district court found that Smith repeatedly filed frivolous and unmeritorious motions, including petitions to remove the personal representative (PR) and the PR’s counsel, motions to disqualify the district court judge, and objections to court orders. These actions were deemed to lack legal or factual basis and were intended to cause unnecessary delay. The PR of the estate moved to have Smith declared a vexatious litigant under Idaho Court Administrative Rule 59(d)(3), which the district court supported, leading to the referral to the ADJ.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and affirmed the ADJ’s decision. The court held that the ADJ did not abuse its discretion in declaring Smith a vexatious litigant. The ADJ acted within the legal standards set forth in Rule 59(d) and reached its decision through an exercise of reason. The court also found that Smith’s due process argument was not preserved for appeal as it was raised for the first time. The court declined to award attorney fees to the ADJ, concluding that Smith’s appeal, although unsuccessful, was not frivolous or unreasonable. View "Smith v. Hippler" on Justia Law

Effie Mae Autry had three children, Steve, Michael, and Melvin. Michael and Melvin predeceased their mother, leaving behind children. In 2014, Effie and her husband Eugene executed wills that distributed their assets equally among their children and grandchildren. Eugene passed away in 2017, and his assets were transferred to Effie. In 2019, Effie executed a new will and several warranty deeds, leaving all assets to Steve and disinheriting her grandchildren. This new will was drafted by attorney Anna Kate Robbins after their long-time attorney, Sidra Winter, refused due to concerns about Effie's mental capacity and potential undue influence by Steve.The Pontotoc County Chancery Court invalidated the 2019 will and the warranty deeds, citing undue influence by Steve and failure to properly authenticate the will. The court found that the affidavits of the attesting witnesses did not include their addresses, as required by Mississippi Code Section 91-7-7. The court also found that Steve had a confidential relationship with Effie and did not rebut the presumption of undue influence.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and affirmed the chancery court's decision. The court held that the 2019 will was not duly authenticated due to the missing addresses on the affidavits. The court also agreed with the chancery court's finding of undue influence, noting that Steve's actions and Effie's declining mental capacity supported this conclusion. The case was remanded to the chancery court for further proceedings regarding the probate of the 2014 will. View "In Re The Matter of the Estate of Autry" on Justia Law

Jeffrey Winter, as trustee, filed a petition against Franklin Menlo, seeking instructions regarding a trust, Frank's suspension and removal as cotrustee, an accounting, and an order revoking a power of appointment executed by Vera Menlo for lack of capacity. The petition also included allegations of financial elder abuse, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of trust, and wrongful taking of property. Prior to this, Jeffrey had consulted with attorney Adam Streisand about potential litigation against Frank, sharing confidential information.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County disqualified Streisand and his law firm, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hamilton LLP, from representing Frank. The court found that Jeffrey was a prospective client under Rule 1.18 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibits attorneys from representing clients with interests materially adverse to those of a prospective client if the attorney received confidential information material to the matter. The court determined that the information Jeffrey shared with Streisand remained confidential and material, necessitating disqualification to avoid the use of that information.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. The court agreed with the lower court's interpretation that materiality should be evaluated at the time of disqualification. It concluded that the information disclosed by Jeffrey to Streisand remained confidential and material, thus affirming the disqualification. The appellate court also considered the equities, noting that the case was still in its early stages and that Frank could find other competent counsel. The order of the Superior Court was affirmed, maintaining the disqualification of Streisand and his firm. View "Winter v. Menlo" on Justia Law

Walter Bedford Jr., an attorney admitted to practice law in 1974, prepared a will for Clara Howard Jackson in 2016, naming himself as executor and Margaret Hayes as the sole beneficiary. After Jackson's death in 2019, Bedford delayed filing the probate petition and missed court dates. He was eventually appointed executor but failed to manage the estate properly, writing checks to himself for unearned fees and depleting the estate's funds. Hayes, the beneficiary, had to hire another attorney to remove Bedford as executor and filed a bar complaint against him.The Inquiry Commission issued a three-count charge against Bedford for failing to act with diligence, failing to safekeep the estate property, and failing to return estate funds after removal as executor. Bedford admitted to these violations. He requested to be placed on Honorary Membership Inactive Status and proposed a negotiated sanction of a public reprimand and repayment of the unearned fees.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the proposed sanction and found it appropriate. The Court noted similar cases where public reprimands and repayments were ordered for comparable misconduct. Considering Bedford's substantial experience, lack of prior discipline, personal hardships, and remorse, the Court concluded that a public reprimand and repayment of the unearned fee were suitable sanctions.The Supreme Court of Kentucky publicly reprimanded Bedford and ordered him to repay $5,979.00 to the estate within one year. Bedford was also directed to pay the costs associated with the disciplinary proceedings. View "In re Bedford" on Justia Law

Robert Mack, a beneficiary of his parents' estates, contested the distribution of assets from his mother’s will and his father’s testamentary trust. After his parents passed away, his brothers Hugh and Eric, acting as co-personal representatives and co-trustees, filed a petition for distribution to Robert. The circuit court approved the distribution after Robert’s attorney did not object at the hearing. Robert later obtained new counsel and filed a motion for relief from the order of distribution, claiming his previous attorney did not inform him of the hearing or the proposed distribution.The Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit in Codington County, South Dakota, denied Robert’s motion for relief under SDCL 15-6-60(b). The court found Robert’s claim that he had no communication with his attorney since late 2022 not credible, based on his previous conduct in court proceedings. The court also concluded that the order of distribution was fair and equitable, despite Robert’s request for an evidentiary hearing to contest the valuation of the estate assets.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case and found that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying Robert’s motion for relief. The Supreme Court noted that Robert’s affidavit, which stated he had no knowledge of the hearing or the proposed distribution, was unrefuted. Additionally, the court highlighted the pending disciplinary proceedings against Robert’s former attorney, which raised concerns about the attorney’s ability to practice law. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s decision and remanded the case with directions to grant the motion for relief from the order of distribution and to set an evidentiary hearing on the petition for distribution. View "In the Matter of the Estate Of Mack" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute among co-trustees of The Pony Tracks Ranch Trust, specifically Allison Littlefield, her brothers David and Scott Littlefield, and her aunt Denise Sobel. Allison filed a petition alleging various grievances, including the removal of co-trustees, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of the Trust. She claimed that the co-trustees misused Trust funds, concealed information, converted her personal property, and restricted her and her husband's use of the Ranch. Additionally, she alleged that the co-trustees failed to address misconduct by an employee, Stacey Limbada, who had been hostile towards her and her husband.The San Mateo County Superior Court denied the appellants' special motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP statute, which is designed to prevent lawsuits that chill the exercise of free speech and petition rights. The court found that the appellants did not meet their burden of showing that Allison's petition arose from protected activity. The court also denied Allison's request for attorney's fees, concluding that the anti-SLAPP motion was not frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the anti-SLAPP motion, agreeing that the appellants failed to demonstrate that the petition was based on protected activity. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of Allison's request for attorney's fees. The appellate court found that the anti-SLAPP motion was frivolous because it was entirely without merit, as no reasonable attorney would conclude that the petition sought to impose liability based on protected activity. The case was remanded for a determination of the appropriate award of attorney's fees for Allison. View "Littlefield v. Littlefield" on Justia Law

Allison J. Littlefield filed a verified petition against Scott Littlefield, David Littlefield, and Denise Sobel, who are co-trustees of The Pony Tracks Ranch Trust and its sub-trusts. The petition alleged misuse of Trust funds, concealment of information, conversion of Allison’s personal property, wrongful removal of Allison from the board, and imposition of restrictions on her and her husband’s use of the Ranch. Allison sought removal of the co-trustees, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the Trust, and declaratory and injunctive relief, including an order enjoining the co-trustees from harassing, disparaging, or defaming her.The San Mateo County Superior Court denied the co-trustees' special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, concluding that the co-trustees failed to show that Allison’s petition arose from protected activity. The court also denied Allison’s request for attorney’s fees, finding that the anti-SLAPP motion was not frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the anti-SLAPP motion, agreeing that the co-trustees did not meet their burden of showing that the petition arose from protected activity. The court found that the co-trustees’ motion was overreaching and did not identify specific allegations of protected activity. The court reversed the trial court’s denial of Allison’s request for attorney’s fees, determining that the anti-SLAPP motion was frivolous because no reasonable attorney would conclude that the motion had merit. The case was remanded for a determination of the appropriate award of attorney’s fees for Allison. View "Littlefield v. Littlefield" on Justia Law

Allison Littlefield filed a verified petition against her brothers, Scott and David Littlefield, and her aunt, Denise Sobel, who are co-trustees of The Pony Tracks Ranch Trust. The petition sought their removal as co-trustees, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and the Trust, and requested declaratory and injunctive relief. Allison claimed that the appellants misused Trust funds, concealed information, converted her personal property, restricted her use of the Ranch, and failed to address misconduct by an employee, Stacey Limbada, who allegedly harassed Allison and her husband.The San Mateo County Superior Court denied the appellants' special motion to strike the petition under California's anti-SLAPP statute, concluding that the appellants failed to show that Allison's petition arose from protected activity. The court also denied Allison's request for attorney's fees, finding that the motion was not frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the anti-SLAPP motion, agreeing that the appellants did not meet their burden of showing that the petition was based on protected activity. The court noted that the appellants' motion failed to identify specific allegations of protected activity and improperly sought to strike the entire petition or all causes of action without distinguishing between protected and unprotected conduct.However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of Allison's request for attorney's fees, finding that the anti-SLAPP motion was frivolous. The court held that any reasonable attorney would agree that the motion was totally devoid of merit, as it did not demonstrate that the petition sought to impose liability based on protected activity. The case was remanded for a determination of the appropriate award of attorney's fees for Allison. View "Littlefield v. Littlefield" on Justia Law